Company in administration 6mnth after they retracted our notice

NDM1975

Might be a tricky one this. I work for a Limited Company which is owned by a Plc.

I am livid.

On the 1st April 2016 we (5 employees, 2 Directors) were told in an open office that we were all on notice on the 1st May. We each received letters telling us our notice period entitlement but not amount to be paid, mine being 10 weeks notice ending on 15th July. The day I went on holiday.

During that time we were repeatedly told to keep working as normal and that our notice will be retracted. On the 15th July my notice hadn't been retracted, I was assured it still would be. I returned to work on the 1st August to a 'Memo' dated 31st July telling me my notice had been retracted (2 weeks late).

Today, less that 6 months later, our company has been put into administration, briefly saying it will be wound up by the end of January then into liquidation. We were assured by our employer (Chairman of the plc) that we will receive everything we are entitled to which implies the Plc will pay it all. However it transpires we will receive a claim form from the Administrators and from what I read it is capped at £330 per week?

We were already on the verge of filing for unfair dismissal last time because they didn't follow the correct procedure, and now they have done this. We all feel screwed over, especially knowing the Chairman is selling the other companies in the group.

Is this not classed as constructive? Surely it is naughty of them to retract our redundancy when they cannot guarantee long term employment?
Would we be entitled to claim for protective payment award?
Are they allowed to do this less than 6 months after retracting our notice?

Thank you in advance for any help

lincroft1710

As your job still existed at 31 July 2016 and has continued to exist until now, there was no redundancy. Jobs are redundant not people. The company did not do anything wrong, in fact it did the right thing.

Constructive dismissal is usually when you resign from a company because your employer makes it untenable to work there

Mersey_2

There's certainly been breach of contract - from that chronology - but it's whether there are any assets (over and above what you know/have been told) to make it worthwhile pursuing that.


Other than it being a case of fraudulent misrep or worse (ie the SFO investigating the firm or CEO in the same way they did Sports Direct or Sir Phillip Green), sadly this does happen and people have to wait for the administrators.


There is a Govt fund if you are concerned that eg NICs weren't being paid, but that will also need checking.

motorguy

NDM1975 wrote: »

Might be a tricky one this. I work for a Limited Company which is owned by a Plc.

I am livid.

On the 1st April 2016 we (5 employees, 2 Directors) were told in an open office that we were all on notice on the 1st May. We each received letters telling us our notice period entitlement but not amount to be paid, mine being 10 weeks notice ending on 15th July. The day I went on holiday.

During that time we were repeatedly told to keep working as normal and that our notice will be retracted. On the 15th July my notice hadn't been retracted, I was assured it still would be. I returned to work on the 1st August to a 'Memo' dated 31st July telling me my notice had been retracted (2 weeks late).

Today, less that 6 months later, our company has been put into administration, briefly saying it will be wound up by the end of January then into liquidation. We were assured by our employer (Chairman of the plc) that we will receive everything we are entitled to which implies the Plc will pay it all. However it transpires we will receive a claim form from the Administrators and from what I read it is capped at £330 per week?

We were already on the verge of filing for unfair dismissal last time because they didn't follow the correct procedure, and now they have done this. We all feel screwed over, especially knowing the Chairman is selling the other companies in the group.

Is this not classed as constructive? Surely it is naughty of them to retract our redundancy when they cannot guarantee long term employment?
Would we be entitled to claim for protective payment award?
Are they allowed to do this less than 6 months after retracting our notice?

Thank you in advance for any help

Sounds like the company was in financial trouble, but pushed on with trading presumably hoping things would improve?

As they're winding up, who would you propose you claim unfair or constructive dismissal from? And presuming they are winding up because they owe other companies or the tax man a small fortune, where would you expect any payment to come from?

NDM1975

Thank you for your reply.

I was wondering if there was something like this. It seems really unfair that at the time of being on notice we told not to worry and that the CEO would retract the redundancy but it left everyone stressed because we thought if this was the case then why drag it out? We were concerned because we were encouraged not to find work elsewhere because our jobs were safe.

And now to find ourselves in a situation where we will not be paid this month and will have to wait 4-6 weeks for money owed, its upsetting and stressful. We were even told right before christmas that we would be ok until at least June, and people made financial decisions off the back of it.

NDM1975

Thank you everyone. It officially went in to administration three days ago,everyone was made redundant with immediate effect. An independent company came in and processed our redundancy claims online for us. The company that is buying the assets has offered jobs to 3 out of 6 employees with rumours of a fourth, none of which are me. 11 years of dedication and loyalty to the Director. Even when a budget for staff training was announced he refused me because 'i was too busy with my kids to do something like that' i should have said something then but I'm too nice for my own good. We live and learn!

superbigal36

You would not be able to claim protective award at an ET because there were less than 20 affected.
Therefore no consultation period would have been needed anyway.